G.R. No. 178159. March 2, 2011.

*
SPS. VICENTE DIONISIO AND ANITA DIONISIO,
petitioner, vs. WILFREDO LINSANGAN, respondent.

action, unchanged, is not barred by the statute of limitations that expired

after the filing of the original complaint.
Same; Same; To determine if an amendment introduces a different

Remedial Law; Amendment of Pleadings; An amended complaint

cause of action, the test is whether such amendment now requires the

that changes the plaintiffs cause of action is technically a new complaint;

defendant to answer for a liability or obligation which is completely

The action is deemed filed on the date of the filing of such amended

different from that stated in the original complaint.To determine if an

pleading, not on the date of the filing of its original version; An

amendment introduces a different cause of action, the test is whether

amendment supplements or amplifies the facts previously alleged, does

such amendment now requires the defendant to answer for a liability or

not affect the reckoning date of filing based on the original complaint.

obligation which is completely different from that stated in the original

An amended complaint that changes the plaintiffs cause of action is

complaint. Here, both the original and the amended complaint required

technically a new complaint. Consequently, the action is deemed filed on

Wilfredo to defend his possession based on the allegation that he had

the date of the filing of such amended pleading, not

stayed on the land after Emiliana left out of the owners mere tolerance

_______________

and that the latter had demanded that he leave. Indeed, Wilfredo did not
find the need to file a new answer.

** Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B.

Nachura per Special Order No. 933 dated January 24, 2011.

Same; Courts; Jurisdiction; The jurisdiction of the court over the

subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the

*** Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta

per Special Order No. 954 dated February 21, 2011.

complaint.Wilfredo points out that the MTC has no jurisdiction to hear

and decide the case since it involved tenancy relation which comes under

* SECOND DIVISION.

the jurisdiction of the DARAB. But the jurisdiction of the court over the

425

subject matter of the action is determined by the allegations of the

VOL. 644, MARCH 2, 2011

Dionisio vs. Linsangan

425 complaint. Besides, the records show that Wilfredo failed to substantiate
his claim that he was a tenant of the land. The MTC records show that

on the date of the filing of its original version. Thus, the statute of

aside from the assertion that he is a tenant, he did not present any

limitation resumes its run until it is arrested by the filing of the

evidence to prove the same. To consider evidence presented only during

amended

appeal is offensive to the idea of fair play.

pleading.

The

Court

acknowledges,

however,

that

an

amendment which does not alter the cause of action but merely

Same;

Special

Civil

Actions;

Unlawful

Detainer;

Essential

supplements or amplifies the facts previously alleged, does not affect the

Requisites of Unlawful Detainer; If the defendant had possession of the

reckoning date of filing based on the original complaint. The cause of

land upon mere tolerance of the owner, such tolerance must be present at

remains in possession, depriving the plaintiff of the enjoyment of his

Gorgonio M. Cruz (Cruz) owned agricultural lands

in San Rafael, Bulacan, that his tenant, Romualdo San
Mateo (Romualdo) cultivated. Upon Romualdos death,
his widow, Emiliana, got Cruzs permission to stay on
the property provided she would vacate it upon
demand.
In September 1989 spouses Vicente and Anita
Dionisio (the Dionisios) bought the property from
Cruz.1 In April 2002, the Dionisios found out that
Emiliana had left the property and that it was already
Wilfredo Linsangan (Wilfredo) who occu-

property; and (4) within a year from plaintiffs last demand that

_______________

the beginning of defendants possession.An action is for unlawful

detainer if the complaint sufficiently alleges the following: (1) initially,
the defendant has possession of property by contract
426

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

26
Dionisio vs. Linsangan
with or by tolerance of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, however, such
possession

became

illegal

upon

plaintiffs

notice

to

defendant,

terminating the latters right of possession; (3) still, the defendant

defendant vacate the property, the plaintiff files a complaint for

defendants ejectment. If the defendant had possession of the land upon
mere tolerance of the owner, such tolerance must be present at the
beginning of defendants possession.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Socrates C. Pigao for petitioners.
Manuel Law Office for respondent.
ABAD, J.:
The case is about a) amendments in the complaint
that do not alter the cause of action and b) the effect in
an unlawful detainer action of the tolerated possessors
assignment of his possession to the defendant.
The Facts and the Case

1 Rollo, p. 92.

427

VOL. 644, MARCH 2, 2011

Dionisio vs. Linsangan

pied it under the strength of a Kasunduan ng Bilihan

ng Karapatan2 dated April 7, 1977.
The Dionisios wrote Wilfredo on April 22, 2002,
demanding that he vacate the land but the latter
declined, prompting the Dionisios to file an eviction
suit3 against him before the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) of San Rafael, Bulacan. Wilfredo filed an
answer with counterclaims in which he declared that
he had been a tenant of the land as early as 1977.
At the pre-trial, the Dionisios orally asked leave to
amend their complaint. Despite initial misgivings over

427

the amended complaint, Wilfredo asked for time to

respond to it. The Dionisios filed their amended
complaint on August 5, 2003; Wilfredo maintained his
original answer.
The MTC issued a pre-trial order4 specifying the
issues. For the plaintiffs: (1) whether or not the
defendant can be ejected from the property and (2)
whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable
rent for the use of the property, damages, and
attorneys fees. For the defendant: (1) whether or not
the MTC has jurisdiction to try this case; (2) whether
or not the defendant can be ejected from the
questioned property; and (3) whether or not the
defendant is entitled to damages and attorneys fees.
On May 3, 2004 the MTC rendered judgment,
ordering Wilfredo to vacate the land and remove his
house from it. Further, the MTC ordered Wilfredo to
pay the Dionisios P3,000.00 a month as reasonable
compensation for the use of the land and P20,000.00 as
attorneys fees and to pay the cost of suit.
On appeal,5 the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Malolos, Bulacan, affirmed the MTC decision, holding
that the case was
_______________
2 Id., at p. 94.
3 Docketed as Civil Case 1160-SRB-2003.
4 Rollo, pp. 133-134.
5 Docketed as Civil Case 381-M0-04.

428

428

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dionisio vs. Linsangan

one for forcible entry. On review,6 however, the Court

of Appeals (CA) rendered judgment on July 6, 2006,
reversing the decisions of the courts below, and
ordering the dismissal of the Dionisios action. The CA
held that, by amending their complaint, the Dionisios
effectively changed their cause of action from unlawful
detainer to recovery of possession which fell outside
the jurisdiction of the MTC. Further, since the
amendment introduced a new cause of action, its filing
on August 5, 2003 marked the passage of the one year
limit from demand required in ejectment suits. More,
since jurisdiction over actions for possession depended
on the assessed value of the property and since such
assessed value was not alleged, the CA cannot
determine what court has jurisdiction over the action.
The Issues Presented
The issues presented in this case are:
1. Whether or not the Dionisios amendment of
their complaint effectively changed their cause of
action from one of ejectment to one of recovery of
possession; and
2. Whether or not the MTC had jurisdiction over
the action before it.

The Rulings of the Court

Dionisios discovered on visit to the land that Emiliana

had left it and that Wilfredo now occupied it under a
One. An amended complaint that changes the
claim that he bought the right to stay from Emiliana
plaintiffs cause of action is technically a new
under a Kasunduan ng Bilihan ng Karapatan; that
complaint. Consequently, the action is deemed filed on
the Dionisios did not know of and gave no consent to
the date of the filing of such amended pleading, not on
this sale which had not been annotated on their title;
the date of the filing of its original version. Thus, the
that the Dionisios verbally told Wilfredo to leave the
statute of limitation resumes its run until it is arrested
property by April 31, 2002; that their lawyer reiterated
by the filing of the amended pleading. The Court
such demand in writing on April 22, 2002; that
acknowledges, however, that an amendment which
Wilfredo did not heed the demand; that the Dionisios
does not alter the cause of action but merely
wanted to get possession so they could till the land and
supplements or amplifies the facts previously alleged,
demolish Wilfredos house on it; that Wilfredo did not
does not affect the reckoning date
give the Dionisios just share in the harvest; and that
_______________
the Dionisios were compelled to get the services of
counsel for P100,000.00.
6 Docketed as CA-G.R. SP 92643.
The amended complaint has essentially identical
429
allegations. The only new ones are that the Dionisios
VOL. 644, MARCH 2, 2011
429
allowed Emiliana, Romualdos widow to stay out of
Dionisio vs. Linsangan
their kindness, tolerance, and generosity; that they
of filing based on the original complaint. The cause of
went to the land in April 2002, after deciding to occupy
action, unchanged, is not barred by the statute of
it, to tell Emiliana of their plan; that Wilfredo cannot
limitations that expired after the filing of the original
deny that Cruz was the previous registered owner and
complaint.7
that he sold the land to the Dionisios; and that a
Here, the original complaint alleges that the
person occupying anothers land by the latters
Dionisios bought the land from Cruz on September 30,
tolerance or permission, without contract, is bound by
1989; that Romualdo used to be the lands tenant; that
an implied promise to leave upon demand, failing
when he died, the Dionisios allowed his widow,
which a summary action for ejectment is the proper
Emiliana, to stay under a promise that she would
remedy.
leave the land upon demand; that in April 2002 the

_______________
7 Wallem Philippines Shipping, Inc. v. S.R. Farms, Inc., G.R. No. 161849, July
9, 2010, 624 SCRA 329.

430

430

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dionisio vs. Linsangan

To determine if an amendment introduces a

different cause of action, the test is whether such
amendment now requires the defendant to answer for
a liability or obligation which is completely different
from that stated in the original complaint.8 Here, both
the original and the amended complaint required
Wilfredo to defend his possession based on the
allegation that he had stayed on the land after
Emiliana left out of the owners mere tolerance and
that the latter had demanded that he leave. Indeed,
Wilfredo did not find the need to file a new answer.
Two. Wilfredo points out that the MTC has no
jurisdiction to hear and decide the case since it
involved tenancy relation which comes under the
jurisdiction of the DARAB.9 But the jurisdiction of the
court over the subject matter of the action is
determined
by
the
allegations
of
the
complaint.10 Besides, the records show that Wilfredo
failed to substantiate his claim that he was a tenant of
the land. The MTC records show that aside from the
assertion that he is a tenant, he did not present any

evidence to prove the same. To consider evidence

presented only during appeal is offensive to the idea of
fair play.
The remaining question is the nature of the action
based on the allegations of the complaint. The RTC
characterized it as
_______________
8

Regalado, F., Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I, 8th ed., p. 189,

citing Rubio v. Mariano, 151 Phil. 418; 49 SCRA 319 (1973).

9 The elements of tenancy agreement are: (1) The parties are the landowner
and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) The subject matter of the relationship is
an agricultural land; (3) There is consent between the parties to the relationship;
(4) The purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5)
There is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and
(6) The harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
lessee. See Escariz v. Revilleza, G.R. No. 155544, August 24, 2007, 531 SCRA 116,
121.
10 Encarnacion v. Amigo, G.R. No. 169793, September 15, 2006, 502 SCRA
172, 178.

431

VOL. 644, MARCH 2, 2011

Dionisio vs. Linsangan

an action for forcible entry, Wilfredo having entered

the property and taken over from widow Emiliana on
the sly. The problem with this characterization is that
the complaint contained no allegation that the
Dionisios were in possession of the property before

431

Wilfredo occupied it either by force, intimidation,

threat, strategy, or stealth, an element of that kind of
eviction suit.11 Nowhere in the recitation of the
amended complaint did the Dionisios assert that they
were in prior possession of the land and were ousted
from such possession by Wilfredos unlawful
occupation of the property.
Is the action one for unlawful detainer? An action is
for unlawful detainer if the complaint sufficiently
alleges the following: (1) initially, the defendant has
possession of property by contract with or by tolerance
of the plaintiff; (2) eventually, however, such
possession became illegal upon plaintiffs notice to
defendant, terminating the latters right of possession;
(3) still, the defendant remains in possession,
depriving the plaintiff of the enjoyment of his property;
and (4) within a year from plaintiffs last demand that
defendant vacate the property, the plaintiff files a
complaint for defendants ejectment.12 If the defendant
had possession of the land upon mere tolerance of the
owner, such tolerance must be present at the
beginning of defendants possession.13
Here, based on the allegations of the amended
complaint, the Dionisios allowed Emiliana, tenant
Romualdos widow, to stay on the land for the
meantime and leave when asked to do so. But, without
the knowledge or consent of the Dionisios, she sold her
right of tenancy to Wilfredo. When the Dionisios

visited the land in April 2002 and found Wilfredo

there, they demanded that he leave the land. They did
so in writing
_______________
11 Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139442, December 6, 2006, 510
SCRA 103, 115.
12 Canlas v. Tubil, G.R. No. 184285, September 25, 2009, 601 SCRA 147, 157158.
13 Heirs of Melchor v. Melchor, 461 Phil. 437, 445; 415 SCRA 726, 734 (2003).

432

432

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dionisio vs. Linsangan

on April 22, 2002 but he refused to leave. The

Dionisios filed their eviction suit within the year.
It is pointed out that the original complaint did not
allege that the Dionisios tolerated Emilianas
possession of the land after her husband died, much
less did it allege that they tolerated Wilfredos
possession after he took over from Emiliana. But the
rules do not require the plaintiff in an eviction suit to
use the exact language of such rules. The Dionisios
alleged that Romualdo used to be the lands tenant and
that when he died, the Dionisios allowed his widow,
Emiliana, to stay under a promise that she would
leave upon demand. These allegations clearly imply
the Dionisios tolerance of her stay meantime that
they did not yet need the land.

As for Wilfredo, it is clear from the allegations of

the complaint that Emiliana assigned to him her right
to occupy the property. In fact that assignment was in
writing. Consequently, his claim to the land was based
on the Dionisios tolerance of the possession of
Emiliana and, impliedly, of all persons claiming right
under her.
True, the Kasunduan ng Bilihan ng Karapatan
under which Emiliana transferred her tenancy right to
Wilfredo appears to have been executed in 1977, years
before Cruz sold the land to the Dionisios, implying
that Wilfredo had already been in possession of the
property before the sale. But what is controlling in
ascertaining the jurisdiction of the court are the
allegations of the complaint. The Dionisios alleged in
their complaint that they were the ones who allowed
Emiliana (and all persons claiming right under her) to
stay on the land meantime that they did not need it.
The MTC and the RTC gave credence to the Dionisios
version. The Court will respect their judgment on a
question of fact.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition,
REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 92643 dated July 6,
2006, and REINSTATES the Decision of the Municipal
Trial Court of San

Dionisio vs. Linsangan

Rafael, Bulacan, in Civil Case 1160-SRB-2003 dated

May 3, 2004.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio
(Chairperson),
Velasco,
Jr.,** Del
***
Castillo andMendoza, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment reversed and set aside.
Note.A complaint for unlawful detainer is
deemed sufficient if it alleges that the withholding of
the possession or the refusal to vacate is unlawful,
without necessarily employing the terminology of the
law. (Limbauan vs. Acosta, 556 SCRA 614 [2008])
o0o

433

VOL. 644, MARCH 2, 2011

433